OK to change this profile's LNAB to Ferrar? [closed]

+8 votes
350 views

Research on this particular person done by a direct descendant led him to ask that the LNAB be changed to Ferrar (see info posted as comments on William's profile page). The profile is protected by the Magna Carta project, so the request to change went to the project (see also comments on WikiTree-36). No objections have been raised, but a Magna Carta project member requested that the issue be posted to G2G for a wider audience.

The father is Ferrar & he is listed in Jamestown muster as fferrar. I see no reason not to go with Ferrar, as it appears that this is how he spelled it.

If no objection, I'll change it Sunday, June 12.

Cheers, Liz

(edit was to correct a typo)

WikiTree profile: William Farrar
closed with the note: decision after discussion was to leave it Farrar
in Genealogy Help by Liz Shifflett G2G6 Pilot (458k points)
closed by Liz Shifflett
It's starting.

Daren't think where it will all end.
I personally think that if we are going to be the "expert" source of how a surname should be spelled there should be a compelling reason to change it.  My decidedly non-expert opinion is that the spelling is probably phonetic.  It was spelled the way the writer heard it said or said it themselves and that name spelling was carried into history. WIlliam's name appears in multiple sources spelled Farrar, including in Richardson, on historic markers placed by the state and current descendants that use the Farrar spelling.  I'm in the in the Chet Snow camp....leave it alone and include the alternate spelling in other last names.

The  image of the  baptismal entry in Croxton Lincolnshire is here  http://www.lincstothepast.com/Records/RecordDisplayTranscript.aspx?oid=723828&iid=180376

 Baptism of  brother John on the previous page . Both spelled Fa not Fe (John's entry  has a double r in the middle, William's a single one)

 

William Ferrar is my 9th great grandfather. Besides his name being spelled fferrar in the Jamestown Muster 1623/25 his father spelled his own name and Williams name Ferrar in his will. See The Farrar's Island Family and It's English Ancestry by Alvanh Holmes for a copy of the will.

I understand the technical difficulties and problems it causes for new members searching for the name, and the potential for creating a duplicate.

Which must be avoided.

However the name is NOT spelled Farrer, never was in this line. In England, in most cases, Farrer is an unrelated line, one exception being a Stephen Farrer of Cumbria.

Leave the name as Farrar then.
I just want to point out that the Ferrar name is a name that some of the Huguenots changed their French names to. They were: Ferrier, Feree, Ferran.

I'm just pointing out that the different spellings in Virginia could come from that. Also, some of the people who came in the 1600s since many of the Huguenots were living as refugees in England and came to the Colonies as soon as they were given an opportunity. So, even if they came before the Manakintowne Huguenots, they could still be Huguenots.

Thanks:

I am quite aware that there were Huguenots in Virginia before Manakin Town.

Which incidentally was an enterprise sanctioned by the Crown, to mollify the concerns of London Merchants who were complaining that the Huguenot refugees were "unfair competition", as they had commercial connections in the "Lowlands" and were very skilled aritsans, tradesmen and weapon makers.  

To mollify these troublesome merchants he gave them a 1,000 acre patent, which was claimed on the site of an abandoned village of the Monacan "Indians"

Paul Revere's father, Appolonius Revoire" anglicized his name and passed on his silver smithing trade to his son.

I do not know of any examples of Huguenots changing their names to Farrar, and I have researched this name since 1964.  For instance a Ferrier is shoer of horses, and along with Farrier is a surname still in use today.

I've accumulated a rather large data base of Farrar's, and along with their participation in the Farrar DNA project, have been able to narrow down three groups. R-Z93 whose ancestral origin appears to be the old Saxon earldom of Northumbria (Yorkshire, Durham, Northumbria, Berkshire)

Saxon Anglia (east and southern counties of England like Norfolk) their haplogroup is I1 (Saxon/Danish) and Mercia (Midland Counties like Oxfordsire, Gloucestershire, Their haplogroup is R1b1.. 

The only possible descendants of James River Farrars are all R-Z93 terminal .which itself is an anomaly, as it is Eurasian, and not found anywhere else in western Europe or Britain . It is also Sarmatian/Sychtian.

There are, of course, a couple of outliers, like the E1b descendant of a slave, or some NPE's.

It is, of course, possible, that there are some Farrars who believe that they are of the "Virginia Farrars", and so claim, but haven't or in the case of two that I know of will not test their DNA.

But before I jump into the Ferrier, Feree, Ferran are Farrar pool, I would need to see their lineages, and more importantly their YDNA (not auDNA or atDNA,)

I am aware that the lineage of my ancestor William Farrar (Ferrar) is registered as a Huguenot lineage http://huguenot-manakin.org/manakin/lineages.php  but do not understand how or why, since he was not Huguenot, although after the sale of their inheritance in 1727 (subsequently called Farrar's Island), many of them moved up the James to settle along or near the Tuckahoe Creek and near Manakin Town and intermarried with the Huguenots.

My 5th great grandfather married the daughter of a John Sanders and possibly a Huguenot wife, given that they named my 4th gggf Stephen, a popular Huguenot name, but also named two sons Rene and Renard both of which are French..Thus demonstrating a French influence.

Alas I have no evidence of such a marriage as I cannot find any reference to the mother of Elizabeth Sanders, daughter of John Sanders, Elizabeth is mentioned in a deed of 300 acres, bestowed as a gift of love, on my 5th ggf, Richard Farrar by John Sanders of Goochland County, VA.

 

2 Answers

+3 votes
 
Best answer

*Ahem* Upon due consideration of this weighty matter, I am pleased to communicate my objection to the proposed change, based on logical conclusions drawn from careful analysis as explained below:

1) There is no reason to change the LNAB to "Ferrar," but there is considerable reason to change the LNAB to "Farrer" *ahem*.

2) The LNAB is theoretically chosen with reference to the spelling of the name on a birth or baptism record.  If we were to actually go with this narrow definition, then the clear choice of this particular LNAB would be "Farer" (with only one "r"), as recorded in the baptism record of William Farer/Farrer/Farrar.

3.  However, sensitive genealogists are, um, sensitive to the possibility of clerical error, and it appears that this spelling ("Farer") was ideosyncratic and never repeated, thus leading to my provisional rejection of "Farer" as the appropriate LNAB, although I understand that "strict interpretationists" (indeed a class of wikitree denizens) have a ready argument at hand if they prefer "Farer."

4.  The spelling on the baptism record of William's elder brother Henry was "Farrer," corresponding the the usual spelling of the name during the adult life of William and Henry's father John Farrer, as evidenced in detail on John Farrer's profile.  For these reasons, I respectfully submit that "Farrer" (with two "r"'s instead of just one "r") would appear to be the most logical LNAB.

5.  The profile of William's father John gives the LNAB as "Ferrar," but this appears to be an error.  (A baptism record seems to be indicated, apparently with the spelling "Farrer.")   For "Farrer" as the dominant spelling, while admitting variations, see also "The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Halifax" at https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=hDlTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=john+farrer+ewood+halifax&source=bl&ots=nuEUwIw09w&sig=z-pZ9f1aaGchFnHtc9TkyQOv43Q&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=john%20farrer%20ewood%20halifax&f=false

5.  And now, having amused myself for the past 20 minutes with this perplexing question, I will return to sorting out the various potentially- related branches of the revolutionary-era Davis families of Culpeper and Pittsylvania Counties.  (Try that one on for a headache, but headway is indeed being made...)

by J S G2G6 Mach 9 (95.4k points)
selected by Liz Shifflett
Thanks so much everyone - especially Helen & John! Considering comments suggesting other changes than LNAB & that it's Farer (brother Farrer) in the baptismal records & that Richardson uses Farrer (Farrar) for William's father, the answer to my question is "no - leave it Farrar".

Love G2G :D
+1 vote
One of the reasons it seemed good to me to discuss this on G2G was a quick look at the man's ancestry on WikiTree.  He himself is presently Farrar.  His father is Ferrar.  And his grandfather is Ferror.  

That immediately puts all the names in play.  If the desire is for a consistent spelling of the whole family, then two out of three need to be changed.  If the desire is to go with the phonetics of the time, then one has a basis for leaving all three the same.

The WikiTree principle of using the name as it would have been AT BIRTH, applied to a fluid name, basically means -- use the spelling not that the individual used -- that developed after birth -- but the spelling that the parents would have used, which is presumably what would be on the birth record.  

In this case, I think Farrer is justified despite Farer appearing on the birth record.  This certainly justifies two or three sentences explaining the reasoning under ==Name==.

The topic is of special interest to me because I'm at the moment working on the profile for Edward Dorsey, whose wife Margaret was of the Larkin family.  Her LNAB at the moment is Lacon, and they gave a son the first name Lacon, spelled that way.  I have no doubt in her lifetime Larkin was pronounced Lacon -- the old Maryland accent removed "r's" from where they belonged and added them where they didn't, as in Warshington, the nation's capital, or my great-grandmother's name, which I'm sure was intended to be Sevilla, but ended up in both the family Bible and gravestone as Survila.  In recognition of this I can see in this history of her profile that her LNAB was once Larkin and was changed to Lacon to go with the name SHE used.  But was it the name she had at birth, when her brothers and sisters have LNABs of Larkin?  I personally think her LNAB needs to be changed back to Larkin, but given the history, that's not to be taken lightly.  Hence the need to really surface the principles behind this sort of action.   Thanks, all, for the discussion.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (363k points)
As I told Liz in a message before this went to G2G - I believe that we should follow Richardson in spelling AND - this is important - we ALSO ADD THE ALTERNATE SPELLING TO THE OTHER LAST NAMES - that's why WikiTree offers this category - so he will show up on both Genealogy Indexes and so avoid unwanted duplicates.

Best to all

Chet Snow

Related questions

+3 votes
0 answers
+8 votes
0 answers
208 views asked Jul 16, 2017 in The Tree House by Kerry Larson G2G6 Pilot (159k points)
+2 votes
0 answers
+19 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
1 answer
+8 votes
2 answers
183 views asked Jun 11, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Traci Thiessen G2G6 Pilot (196k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...